A patient with a missing tooth asks a simple question: which dentist near me can fit an implant, who would do it, and what will it cost? An answer engine, or a careful reader, needs the page to name the dentist, show a registration anyone can check, say who regulates the practice and give a price with what it covers. We reviewed implant pages from eight Leeds and Manchester practices that appeared in search results for dental implants in each city.
Names and prices were common. The links that let a reader check them were not. Seven of the eight published an implant price and seven named a dentist. Three showed a General Dental Council (GDC) registration number, one linked to a dentist’s entry on the GDC register, and two linked to their own page on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website in the page code they returned.
What we found on these eight practices’ pages
Six of the seven priced a single implant; the other priced full-arch packages only. Four said what an implant price includes, six said what changes the price or named extras such as bone grafting or a scan, and six gave a consultation fee or said the consultation was free. Two said whether implants are available on the NHS. Four named the CQC. Seven showed reviews, a rating, a review count or a link to a review platform, and two carried a visible date. Information not found on the pages we reviewed may appear elsewhere on the practice’s website or be given at a consultation.
Download the eight-practice observation sheet (CSV) · See the eight-practice table
Why the number and the link matter
The GDC has a legal duty to publish its registers. They are free, anyone can search them by name or town, and an entry shows the professional’s status, registration number and qualifications. The GDC’s guidance on advertising, which the GDC gives as effective from 30 September 2013, says a dental professional mentioned on a website as providing dental care must make sure their professional qualification, the country it comes from and their GDC registration number are displayed. The same guidance asks practice websites to show a link to the GDC or its contact details, the complaints procedure and the date the website was last updated, and says practice publicity must make clear whether the practice is NHS, mixed or wholly private.
On the pages we reviewed, seven practices named a dentist and three showed a GDC number. Numbers may appear elsewhere on these websites, for example on team pages, so this is a page observation, not a finding that any practice falls short of the guidance. Three practices linked to the GDC’s home page or its register search page rather than to an entry. A number lets a reader search the register; a link to the entry saves them the search.
In England, the CQC inspects 10% of dentists each year and publishes a page for each dental service, with the latest inspection report and who is responsible for running the service. It does not give ratings to dentist services, so the page and its reports are what a reader can check. Four practices named the CQC. In the page code each site returned, two linked to its CQC page; one of these links is a fallback for readers whose browser does not run scripts, and in a browser the CQC’s own widget takes its place. One more practice showed a CQC link only after its scripts ran in a browser, and one other listed its CQC page only in its structured data, the code written for search engines and other software. Whether a particular AI system runs a page’s scripts before reading it varies and was not tested here; a link written into the page code does not depend on it.
The NHS says implants are usually only available privately and are expensive; they are rarely available on the NHS, for patients who cannot wear dentures for reasons such as mouth cancer or an accident. Two of the eight pages answered that question directly.
Three useful patterns to take from the review
1. Put the number and the link beside the name
One practice’s implant page gives its principal dentist’s GDC number next to the dentist’s name and makes the number a link to the dentist’s entry on the GDC register. It was the only practice of the eight to link to an entry. Two others showed the number beside the dentist’s name without a link to the entry.
A reader who follows that link can compare the name, status and qualifications on the register with the page. An AI system that reads the page finds the name, the number and the register address together.
We did not open the register entries or check any registration; we recorded what the pages contain.
2. Price the implant and say what is in and what is out
One practice’s implant page prices the implant consultation, the 3D scan and bone grafting as separate items, says its treatment fees cover the implant, the surgery and the final restoration, and says most cases also need some combination of extra work, such as extractions, grafting or a temporary restoration, confirmed in a written quote after the consultation. Its fees page sets out, under its own heading, what the starting prices do not include.
Another practice prices full-arch packages and lists under each what the package includes: assessments, scans, planning and aftercare. Either way, the reader learns what the number covers as well as the number.
Observed page structure, not an endorsement of any practice or a check of its prices.
3. Date the page, name who checked it and keep one figure
Two of the eight carried a visible date. The clearest named a dentist as the page’s clinical reviewer, with a review date, near the foot of the implant page. The other showed a month and year in the site footer. A third showed a ‘last updated’ label with a template placeholder where the date should be.
Two practices gave different figures for the same item in different places. One implant page gave two different starting prices for implant treatment in different sections, and that practice’s implant and fees pages gave different starting prices for bone grafting. Another practice’s implant page and fees page gave different prices for an implant and for the implant consultation. The differences may have explanations, such as different consultation types, that the pages do not give. A reader, or an AI system, that meets two figures cannot tell which applies. One reviewed figure per item, the same on every page, or a sentence explaining the difference, avoids the question.
A practical review of your own implant page
Open your implant page and your fees page and work through these questions. Use the worksheet to record the evidence, the person responsible and the next change. The tick boxes below are a temporary reading aid; they do not create a score or save your work.
- Name the dentist, their qualification and where it was obtained.
- Show the GDC number beside the name and link it to the dentist’s entry on the register.
- Name the CQC (in England) and link to your service’s own CQC page with a plain link in the page, not only a script or a logo.
- Give a starting price for a single implant and say what it includes: consultation, scan, implant, abutment, crown, follow-up.
- Name the common extras, such as bone grafting, extractions or sedation, with a price or range where you can.
- Say whether the treatment is private, show a review date and name the dentist who approved the facts.
Download the 10-question worksheet (CSV)
A content-review aid, not a regulatory checklist or professional advice. Check the GDC’s guidance and your own obligations, and have a responsible dentist approve the facts before publication. If you use the title ‘Dr’, the Committee of Advertising Practice recommends making clear, prominently, that it is a courtesy title and that a general medical qualification is not held.
How this relates to AI visibility
An AI assistant answering “which dentist can fit an implant near me” can only repeat what it can find and connect. A named dentist, a GDC number with a link to the register and a link to the practice’s CQC page give it specific facts it can check against other sources; a logo and a general claim give it less. These checks identify information a reader can verify; they do not show whether a page is cited in AI answers. Our page on AI visibility for dentists explains how we test the answers, and our measurement guide explains how to keep that evidence separate from a page review.
The practices we reviewed
We do not name the practices. Several observations concern information that is absent from the pages we reviewed, and a page review is not a fair basis for public judgements about individual businesses. Practices are labelled A to D (Leeds) and E to H (Manchester); letters were assigned at random within each city and do not follow search order. The page addresses, capture times and SHA-256 hashes are held on file. A practice in the sample can ask us for its own coding.
“Not found in reviewed pages” means we did not find that information in the page code returned for the one or two pages reviewed for that practice; it may appear elsewhere on its website, appear once scripts run in a browser, or be provided at a consultation. A recorded feature does not establish accuracy or completeness.
| Practice | Implant price | GDC number for a named dentist | Link to a GDC register entry | Link to its CQC page |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Practice A Leeds | Found | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Practice B Leeds | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Practice C Leeds | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Practice D Leeds | Found | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Practice E Manchester | Found | Found | Found | Not found in page code; shown in a browser |
| Practice F Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
| Practice G Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Practice H Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
Download all twelve recorded features for each practice (CSV)
Method, boundaries and corrections
On 27 September 2026 we wrote down a selection rule, then ran one web search per city, “dental implants Leeds” and “dental implants Manchester”, with the web search tool of the AI assistant used for this research, not directly on a named search engine. In result order, we took the first four distinct dental practices in each city, excluding directories, marketplaces, comparison and booking sites, NHS and other public-sector pages, group landing pages that did not name a practice in the city, and articles not published by a practice, and counting each practice once. A social media profile was also passed over. The query did not mention price, so that it would not favour pages that publish prices. The search tool returned results for places called Leeds and Manchester in the United States; these were excluded. The Manchester search returned no UK practice. Our written fallback, adding “clinic” to the query, would not have removed the US results, so we replaced it with a re-run as “dental implants Manchester UK” and recorded that change in our search log before capturing any Manchester page. The Leeds search was not repeated.
Two results were passed over and the next eligible result taken: a Leeds practice page that returned HTTP 403 on two attempts, and a Manchester postgraduate training institute whose returned page, once captured, proved to be a news article about supervised student clinics, which we judged not to be a dental practice. The sample is purposive, not random, and search order favours practices that are already easy to find.
For each practice we reviewed the page the search returned and, where that page linked to one, its fees or implant cost page; seven of the eight linked one. We captured the returned HTML with UTC timestamps and SHA-256 hashes and extracted the text and link list. We did not run JavaScript for the coding, so content that loads only in the browser, and anything shown only inside images, was not coded; image descriptions (alt text) and fallback content for browsers without scripts were read. We coded visible text, links and image descriptions, not structured data or dates held only in page code. As a separate check on the same day, we opened every reviewed page in a browser, let its scripts run and recorded links to the GDC register and the CQC website; the results are described above and given in the observation sheet. We did not contact practices, request quotes, check the GDC register or CQC records, or visit other pages.
Each practice was coded on twelve features using a written codebook. A price counts where a figure is given for any implant treatment; finance repayments alone do not count. A general five-star claim without reviews, a stated rating, a count or a platform link does not count as reviews. Research and coding were assisted by AI. An independent review re-read the captures and re-fetched the pages; it found one CQC link our text extraction had missed and two borderline codes, and all three were corrected before publication. Presence of a feature does not establish its accuracy or completeness.
The regulatory statements above are taken from the linked GDC, CQC, NHS and Committee of Advertising Practice pages as read on 27 September 2026. This narrow page review does not determine whether any practice meets the GDC’s guidance, CQC requirements or any legal requirement.
Send specific corrections, with the page address and passage, to hello@answari.co.uk. Later corrections will be dated here.